Good to see he invokes the United Nations as being prepared to do the bidding of genocidal, Islamofascist monsters. Not that there was really any doubt that the UN sides with them:
EYE ON A CRAZY PLANET
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Palestine House "retired terrorist" not so retired - calls for all-out violence
Issam al-Yamani, an Executive Director of Palestine House in Mississauga and a member of CAIA’s Coordinating Committee, called for launching a third Palestinian Intifada (meaning violent uprising) in Palestine and the Diaspora, implicitly also in Canada.As an amusing aside, an article about al-Yamani's deportation hearing reported the "Court heard how Mr. Al Yamani is a changed man since coming to Canada; living here has made him "multicultural" and he now rejects violence "even under the rules of war." "
Funny how when he's not in front of a judge, he isn't so unsupportive of violence.
h/t Sassy
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
From the Islamic Republic of Great Britain: FOI request reveals Geller & Spencer were banned for "pro-Israel" views
Pam Geller in The Daily Caller:
The British government tried to cover its tracks. But a new cache of documents Robert Spencer and I have received in our battle to overturn our being banned from Britain reveal that a chief reason why we were banned from the country was because we strongly support Israel. As part of our lawsuit against the Queen of England and the Home Secretary et al, we have received numerous documents between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Office of Security and Counterterrorism, and the Home Secretary. In one of them, an official in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office whose name was redacted wrote this letter on May 7 to a recipient whose name was also redacted:
h/t Blazing Cat Fur
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Obama's best solution for Syria: Blast the living shit out of Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guards
Who would have thought that a wretched, backwards little country about which few in the west ever think, let alone care about, could trigger one of the world's great conflagrations?
There are no good guys in Syria's civil war. We are at the deplorable point in world affairs that the despotic Russian President Putin has more credibility than US Secretary of State Kerry, when the latter has said "moderates" are in charge of Syria's rebellion and the former called him a liar.
A world war is not going to break out if the US bombs Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons against rebels. But it's worth remembering that just under 100 years ago, the assassination of an Austrian archduke in Serbia triggered a war which was responsible for history's greatest loss of life of soldiers in battle. The point being, these things have a way of getting out of hand when national leaders don't know what they are doing.
Barack Obama is not a President whose leadership inspires great confidence on the world stage. It is for that very reason that he does need to keep his word and launch a punitive strike in Syria. Not to teach Bashar al-Assad a lesson, but to keep the world from spiraling into the even more chaotic state of instability that would worsen if miscreant nations realized that American threats carry no weight.
Because of Obama's dithering and then mishandling of the Syrian file, he now has to strike.
But strike whom?
The west has nothing to gain and much to lose if the scales are tipped too far in either direction in Syria. However one of the reasons Syria is a linchpin in its region is its close relationship with Iran and its influence in Lebanon with the Iranian-proxy terror group Hezbollah.
Both Iran and Hezbollah have sent fighters to support Assad in the civil war.
American military intelligence knows precisely where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah fighters serving Assad's cause are stationed.
It is they whom the US should strike, and it should be done decisively.
Syrians would not be infuriated at the deaths of foreigners that insinuated themselves into their domestic affairs. Assad would not be toppled by the loss of the Iranians and Hezbollah auxiliaries. But a clear message would be sent, both to the reprobate Mullahs in Tehran, who have terrorized the Middle East since the Khomeini revolution in 1979, and to their subordinate stooges who maintain a stranglehold over domestic affairs in Lebanon through thuggery and intimidation.
Obama could accomplish a great deal if he has the resolve to push through the measure. It would restore him as a world leader, help stave off the collapse of American credibility, and even give the US President an opportunity to provide a "teachable moment" to the world's most vile rogues.
There are no good guys in Syria's civil war. We are at the deplorable point in world affairs that the despotic Russian President Putin has more credibility than US Secretary of State Kerry, when the latter has said "moderates" are in charge of Syria's rebellion and the former called him a liar.
A world war is not going to break out if the US bombs Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons against rebels. But it's worth remembering that just under 100 years ago, the assassination of an Austrian archduke in Serbia triggered a war which was responsible for history's greatest loss of life of soldiers in battle. The point being, these things have a way of getting out of hand when national leaders don't know what they are doing.
Barack Obama is not a President whose leadership inspires great confidence on the world stage. It is for that very reason that he does need to keep his word and launch a punitive strike in Syria. Not to teach Bashar al-Assad a lesson, but to keep the world from spiraling into the even more chaotic state of instability that would worsen if miscreant nations realized that American threats carry no weight.
Because of Obama's dithering and then mishandling of the Syrian file, he now has to strike.
But strike whom?
The west has nothing to gain and much to lose if the scales are tipped too far in either direction in Syria. However one of the reasons Syria is a linchpin in its region is its close relationship with Iran and its influence in Lebanon with the Iranian-proxy terror group Hezbollah.Both Iran and Hezbollah have sent fighters to support Assad in the civil war.
American military intelligence knows precisely where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah fighters serving Assad's cause are stationed.
It is they whom the US should strike, and it should be done decisively.
Syrians would not be infuriated at the deaths of foreigners that insinuated themselves into their domestic affairs. Assad would not be toppled by the loss of the Iranians and Hezbollah auxiliaries. But a clear message would be sent, both to the reprobate Mullahs in Tehran, who have terrorized the Middle East since the Khomeini revolution in 1979, and to their subordinate stooges who maintain a stranglehold over domestic affairs in Lebanon through thuggery and intimidation.
Obama could accomplish a great deal if he has the resolve to push through the measure. It would restore him as a world leader, help stave off the collapse of American credibility, and even give the US President an opportunity to provide a "teachable moment" to the world's most vile rogues.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Justin Trudeau Would Give Your Money To Omar Khadr & Canada Should Admit Cannibal Syrian Jihadi Refugees
If most of us had intentionally set out to create preposterous policies for comedic irony, they would come nowhere near to the laughable idiocy that is Justin Trudeau.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
London's "No Place for Hate" rally at mosque where pro-sex slavery Imam preaches death for apostates
The rally is ostensibly to oppose "those who seek to sow divisions in our (Islamist) community" in the wake of the murder of Lee Rigby by British Jihadists. The announcement also invites attendees to "join our commitment to oppose racism and bigotry and declare Tower Hamlets is No Place for Hate."
Although as the British blog Harry's Place observes, it's only a particular type of hate about which they are concerned, which evidently would be the quite rational hatred of those advancing the cause of murderous, Islamist Jihad.
As Harry's Place notes:
Last week at the East London Mosque, you could have heard the Friday sermon being delivered by a hate preacher who has been banned from Sheffield Hallam university: Assim al-Hakeem.Among the pronouncements of al-Hakkem are the validity of killing apostates from Islam as well as for Christians and Jews who speak ill of Mohammed. Naturally, he also is homophobic and is pro-sex slavery for women.
No place for hate indeed...
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
My night with Pam Geller
While she is well known for her opposition to Islamist terror, with her notoriety for anti-Muslim rhetoric, Pamela Geller, as a subject, was someone whom I generally avoided.
Her campaigns against "Jihad" were notable, but mainly for the reactions they inspired and the way in which it highlighted the hypocrisy that some on the left in America demonstrate when it comes to Free Speech.
Islamism, with its determined mission of suppressing dissent and its fostering of ideals that inevitably lead to terror and repression, is despicable. But just as despicable is prejudice against Muslims and the presumption of guilt or sympathy for terror simply because of someone's ethnic or cultural background. I didn't know if Geller's words justified her reputation as a bigot and, to be honest, I didn't find her interesting enough to inquire, so to my thinking she was irrelevant.
That changed recently when she stirred up a controversy in my part of the world. The York Regional Police Department leaned on one of its chaplains to cancel a speech by her because it didn't reflect their "values of diversity," threatening to remove him as a police chaplain if he hosted her at his synagogue. That would be reasonable if Geller's reputation was true. Yet retaining a Muslim chaplain who attended a conference organized by a group with direct terrorist affiliations, including with al Qaida, demonstrated the York Police's rather odd and hypocritical concept of "values of diversity."
It seemed to me that it would be worthwhile to hear what Geller had to say for herself, rather than to make a judgement based on what others said about her, so I accepted an invitation to hear her speech.
I'm glad I did, because just about everything I'd heard about Pamela Geller was a lie.
There was nothing "anti-Muslim" in anything she said. Her fight is with Jihadism, a fanatical ideology which promotes violence and terror. Geller said her principal motivation is the struggle to preserve individual liberty, which Islamism, like Marxism, fights to repress.
The delivery was fiery and pugnacious, but her message in fact resembled that of Muslim reformers I know, such as Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah, who struggle to spread the word that it is Muslims themselves who are victimized the most and harshest by Islamist totalitarianism. Like those Muslim reformers, she warned that by turning a blind eye to Islamism in North America, we encourage its growth here.
Geller spoke against the repression of women and female genital mutilation and honor killings and the promotion of terrorism of which most American Muslims find abhorrent, but far too many Islamic leaders, such as those at the York Region Islamic Society, remain silent or even give tacit approval.
I could elucidate further, but that was in essence the entirety of her message and a review of her website and writings suggests that her talk last night is consistent with everything she has said in the past.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything Geller says or the ways she chooses to deliver it.
Her use of quotes from the Quran to vilify Jihadism is unfair. One could as easily cherry-pick quotes from the Old Testament that imply approbation of killing. The importance is not in the wording of ancient texts but the contemporary interpretation within a religion. By some, the verses in the Quran are taken literally, but by most they are considered antiquated and immaterial.
Her controversial anti-Jihad campaign in New York is another example. She had posters placed in the transit system which read, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man, support Israel defeat Jihad."
I would take issue with the use of the terms "civilized" and "savage." After all, it was the "civilized" Spanish Conquistadors who introduced the sadistic, ghoulish practice of scalping when they fought the "savage" natives of North America.
However, the west is in a war against those who intentionally target civilians for murder, who kill Gays, treat women as little more than property, and who believe free speech is subservient to their dictates. That we should support a liberal democracy fighting to defend its citizens against them is something anyone resembling a modicum of a moral compass should support.
Which raises the question of why Geller's reputation is so rancid.
The answer falls into two categories, one is that there are Islamist organizations whose purposes it serves to suppress her message. Those include Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Islamic Society of North America, who portray themselves as mainstream, but have links to the most reprehensible practices and ideologies of hate.
The other are the useful idiots of Jihadism who are primarily concerned with maintaining their image as "community leaders" who promote tolerance, even if it means tolerating a doctrine that calls for suppression of free speech, illiberal treatment of minorities and outright murderous acts.
Unfortunately, some among the so-called leadership of the Jewish community are behaving like self-serving moral pygmies in order to bolster their own image, at what to them must be only the minor cost of truth and integrity.
A group with the grandiose-sounding name of the Toronto Board of Rabbis, which in reality only represents a handful of reform and nominally conservative Jewish congregations, publicly condemned Geller. Referring to her "extreme criticism of Muslims" they say they find her views "distasteful." They are unable to specify any of those distasteful views since they evidently haven't bothered to investigate what she actually has said or written and issued a condemnation based on rumor and reputation.
It is tragic that a group of people with the pretense of being "learned" and "community leaders" behave like small-minded, sanctimonious ignoramuses who are an embarrassment to the biblical teachings they claim to uphold.
Tragic, but not surprising.
It's no secret that there is an implicit understanding among some of the heads of Jewish congregations and organizations. They go out and raise money as "community leaders" and make very good salaries in the process. They are called upon as "official Jews" when the CBC or Toronto Star wants a quote. And all they have to do to maintain that is to play ball and periodically issue worthless platitudes about diversity and cooperation with people who hold them in complete contempt.
Meanwhile the people who actually stand up to those who want to destroy the Jewish State or speak out forcefully against terrorism and for free speech get portrayed by these "official Jews" as a "radical fringe."
But make no mistake about it. Many official Jews profess, albeit very, very quietly, to the radical fringe that they share their concerns. But not too loudly of course, because that might entail a cut in pay and prestige.
There are a few Canadian Jewish organizations, like the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and CIJA, that do have integrity. But far too many are no better than the appeasers who, in the 1930's felt it would be better to remain quiet and not rock the boat as the Nazis came to power in Germany and went about their work of genocide.
In fact, they are even worse. Because now with the lessons of history, the "official Jews" should know what horrors their appeasement of evil can bring.
Her campaigns against "Jihad" were notable, but mainly for the reactions they inspired and the way in which it highlighted the hypocrisy that some on the left in America demonstrate when it comes to Free Speech.
Islamism, with its determined mission of suppressing dissent and its fostering of ideals that inevitably lead to terror and repression, is despicable. But just as despicable is prejudice against Muslims and the presumption of guilt or sympathy for terror simply because of someone's ethnic or cultural background. I didn't know if Geller's words justified her reputation as a bigot and, to be honest, I didn't find her interesting enough to inquire, so to my thinking she was irrelevant.
That changed recently when she stirred up a controversy in my part of the world. The York Regional Police Department leaned on one of its chaplains to cancel a speech by her because it didn't reflect their "values of diversity," threatening to remove him as a police chaplain if he hosted her at his synagogue. That would be reasonable if Geller's reputation was true. Yet retaining a Muslim chaplain who attended a conference organized by a group with direct terrorist affiliations, including with al Qaida, demonstrated the York Police's rather odd and hypocritical concept of "values of diversity."
It seemed to me that it would be worthwhile to hear what Geller had to say for herself, rather than to make a judgement based on what others said about her, so I accepted an invitation to hear her speech.
I'm glad I did, because just about everything I'd heard about Pamela Geller was a lie.
There was nothing "anti-Muslim" in anything she said. Her fight is with Jihadism, a fanatical ideology which promotes violence and terror. Geller said her principal motivation is the struggle to preserve individual liberty, which Islamism, like Marxism, fights to repress.
The delivery was fiery and pugnacious, but her message in fact resembled that of Muslim reformers I know, such as Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah, who struggle to spread the word that it is Muslims themselves who are victimized the most and harshest by Islamist totalitarianism. Like those Muslim reformers, she warned that by turning a blind eye to Islamism in North America, we encourage its growth here.
Geller spoke against the repression of women and female genital mutilation and honor killings and the promotion of terrorism of which most American Muslims find abhorrent, but far too many Islamic leaders, such as those at the York Region Islamic Society, remain silent or even give tacit approval.
I could elucidate further, but that was in essence the entirety of her message and a review of her website and writings suggests that her talk last night is consistent with everything she has said in the past.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything Geller says or the ways she chooses to deliver it.
Her use of quotes from the Quran to vilify Jihadism is unfair. One could as easily cherry-pick quotes from the Old Testament that imply approbation of killing. The importance is not in the wording of ancient texts but the contemporary interpretation within a religion. By some, the verses in the Quran are taken literally, but by most they are considered antiquated and immaterial.
Her controversial anti-Jihad campaign in New York is another example. She had posters placed in the transit system which read, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man, support Israel defeat Jihad."
I would take issue with the use of the terms "civilized" and "savage." After all, it was the "civilized" Spanish Conquistadors who introduced the sadistic, ghoulish practice of scalping when they fought the "savage" natives of North America.
However, the west is in a war against those who intentionally target civilians for murder, who kill Gays, treat women as little more than property, and who believe free speech is subservient to their dictates. That we should support a liberal democracy fighting to defend its citizens against them is something anyone resembling a modicum of a moral compass should support.
Which raises the question of why Geller's reputation is so rancid.
The answer falls into two categories, one is that there are Islamist organizations whose purposes it serves to suppress her message. Those include Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Islamic Society of North America, who portray themselves as mainstream, but have links to the most reprehensible practices and ideologies of hate.
The other are the useful idiots of Jihadism who are primarily concerned with maintaining their image as "community leaders" who promote tolerance, even if it means tolerating a doctrine that calls for suppression of free speech, illiberal treatment of minorities and outright murderous acts.
Unfortunately, some among the so-called leadership of the Jewish community are behaving like self-serving moral pygmies in order to bolster their own image, at what to them must be only the minor cost of truth and integrity.
A group with the grandiose-sounding name of the Toronto Board of Rabbis, which in reality only represents a handful of reform and nominally conservative Jewish congregations, publicly condemned Geller. Referring to her "extreme criticism of Muslims" they say they find her views "distasteful." They are unable to specify any of those distasteful views since they evidently haven't bothered to investigate what she actually has said or written and issued a condemnation based on rumor and reputation.
It is tragic that a group of people with the pretense of being "learned" and "community leaders" behave like small-minded, sanctimonious ignoramuses who are an embarrassment to the biblical teachings they claim to uphold.
Tragic, but not surprising.
It's no secret that there is an implicit understanding among some of the heads of Jewish congregations and organizations. They go out and raise money as "community leaders" and make very good salaries in the process. They are called upon as "official Jews" when the CBC or Toronto Star wants a quote. And all they have to do to maintain that is to play ball and periodically issue worthless platitudes about diversity and cooperation with people who hold them in complete contempt.
Meanwhile the people who actually stand up to those who want to destroy the Jewish State or speak out forcefully against terrorism and for free speech get portrayed by these "official Jews" as a "radical fringe."
But make no mistake about it. Many official Jews profess, albeit very, very quietly, to the radical fringe that they share their concerns. But not too loudly of course, because that might entail a cut in pay and prestige.
There are a few Canadian Jewish organizations, like the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and CIJA, that do have integrity. But far too many are no better than the appeasers who, in the 1930's felt it would be better to remain quiet and not rock the boat as the Nazis came to power in Germany and went about their work of genocide.
In fact, they are even worse. Because now with the lessons of history, the "official Jews" should know what horrors their appeasement of evil can bring.
Kol Hakavod to the Toronto Board of Rabbis for their strong stand against the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Pam Geller tinyurl.com/cohv5lh
— Bernie M. Farber (@BernieFarber) May 14, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Canada's useful idiots of Jihad
Canadians are on their guard against the growing Islamist threat. After all, the last month alone brought the Boston Marathon bombing, and arrests in Canada of suspected Iranian-linked al-Qaeda bomb-plotters targeting Canada-US passenger train routes. Add to that, repeated stories of Islamist radicalism in Canadian neighborhoods and young Canadian Muslim terrorists abroad.
Against this backdrop, the last thing to be expected at this fraught time would be a public event in Canada's capital showcasing a radical Islamist, boasting a master of ceremonies from the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, involving a respected mental health foundation, and including the wife of the highest office-holder in the land. Nonetheless, this is what is being planned for Ottawa, this weekend.
h/t Blazing Cat Fur
Monday, April 15, 2013
Alberta Premier Redford recommends Queen's Jubilee Medal for Jihad-promoting Islamist
Abraham Ayache wants a bloody jihad on Israel and Allison Redford wants to honor him - Blazing Cat Fur has the details
Plus this update on their loony tunes conspiracy ideas.
and more here
Plus this update on their loony tunes conspiracy ideas.
and more here
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Afghan duo who disrupted solemn Remembrance Day services want to sue Sun News for "defamation"
Two young Afghan-Canadian women who helped disrupt Remembrance day services last November say they want to launch a defamation suit against Sun News. The presumptive grounds is their claim they were libeled when referred to as "Taliban supporters" "Islamists" and "Jihadists."
The pair do however, make it very clear they want NATO and western forces out of Afghanistan.
If NATO, including Canadian forces were to withdraw from Afghanistan, who benefits and who loses?
The obvious answer is that immediate gain would go to the Taliban, the fanatical Islamist terror organization, which would likely regain control of the chaotic Central Asian country. The clear losers would be Afghan women, upon whom the Taliban, during their rule and in areas they control, imposed the most brutal and restrictive controls. The Taliban prevented women from receiving education, from having employment, from going out in public in anything more revealing than a full-body burkah, and from leaving home without permission of a male relative, among other primitive dictates from the catalogue of Islamic totalitarianism.
So it follows to reason that those advocating a NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan are, consciously or not, acting in the de facto interests of and lending tacit support to the Taliban.
Which brings us to a pair of young women who gained notoriety last November for a reprehensible display during Remembrance Day services at Toronto's Old City Hall. Laila Rashdie and Suraia Sahar both insist they are neither Taliban supporters nor Islamists, as they had been described following the incident which they helped to instigate. From their appearance, that claim seems entirely plausible. Both wear modern western clothing and take advantage of Canada's generous education subsidies to all post-secondary students, privileges they would be deprived of were they living under Taliban control in what they often refer to as their "home country" of Afghanistan.
But by proposing a withdrawal of all foreign troops to Afghanistan, they are advocating for something the Taliban desperately wants so it can seize control in Afghanistan and restore their tyrannical rule.
So how would a modicum of human and women's rights be preserved in Afghanistan if NATO were to pack up and leave? Ms. Sahar offered the phenomenally simplistic, nonsensical solution of providing education and health care. Things that have improved significantly under NATO's presence and would be eradicated under the Taliban. How women are going to receive these services without a competent armed force to preserve them is something she neglects to delineate because she obviously doesn't have the slightest clue.
What does seem apparent is Ms Sahar and Ms. Rushdie lack the mental acuity to connect rather obvious dots and comprehend that what they advocate serves to support the aims of the hateful Taliban Islamists.
Of course, profound, or even average insight is not something one expects from the sort of people who write things like,
Apparently that's something they want for other unfortunate Afghan women, but not for themselves. Maybe, though hypocrites, they aren't quite as stupid as they sound.
There are plenty of opinions and honest disagreements about the Canadian military role in Afghanistan and anyone has the right to speak out and demonstrate against it. But Remembrance Day services are solemn occasions meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and the principles that represents. To choose the particular location and occasion of a Remembrance Day service to insult and demonstrate and intentionally offend those who have come to mourn is callous and disgusting. Anyone who does that, as my friend Michael Coren has observed, is in my opinion no better than the moral troglodytes of the Hillsboro Baptist Church who defile military funerals with their "God hates fags" protest signs.
While writing about their own courage, the pair of hypocrites who claim their free speech was deprived neglected to mention the police were actually protecting them from an angry mob they had riled up with their offensive display.
Rashdie and Sahar protest that they, with their banner, were not the ones shouting slogans during the moment of silence at the service and they were only one of four protest groups their to offend those honoring and mourning lost soldiers. To the casual observer, there would be no distinction between the two dozen or so ragged radicals who were intermingling and shaming themselves on that occasion. And, as a video shows, the pair certainly enthusiastically participated in foul-mouthed, shrill, shameful hysteria that continued the disruption of the services that day.
The pair tried to justify themselves when they wrote,
Their idiocy continued with:
That seems evident from an article penned by Leila Rushdie in which she wrote:
But remember, Ms Rushdie and Ms Sahar are not Taliban supporters, Islamists or Jihadis. They just, by remarkable coincidence, share a lot of desired outcomes with them.
The pair do however, make it very clear they want NATO and western forces out of Afghanistan.
If NATO, including Canadian forces were to withdraw from Afghanistan, who benefits and who loses?
The obvious answer is that immediate gain would go to the Taliban, the fanatical Islamist terror organization, which would likely regain control of the chaotic Central Asian country. The clear losers would be Afghan women, upon whom the Taliban, during their rule and in areas they control, imposed the most brutal and restrictive controls. The Taliban prevented women from receiving education, from having employment, from going out in public in anything more revealing than a full-body burkah, and from leaving home without permission of a male relative, among other primitive dictates from the catalogue of Islamic totalitarianism.
So it follows to reason that those advocating a NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan are, consciously or not, acting in the de facto interests of and lending tacit support to the Taliban.
 |
| via facebook |
But by proposing a withdrawal of all foreign troops to Afghanistan, they are advocating for something the Taliban desperately wants so it can seize control in Afghanistan and restore their tyrannical rule.
So how would a modicum of human and women's rights be preserved in Afghanistan if NATO were to pack up and leave? Ms. Sahar offered the phenomenally simplistic, nonsensical solution of providing education and health care. Things that have improved significantly under NATO's presence and would be eradicated under the Taliban. How women are going to receive these services without a competent armed force to preserve them is something she neglects to delineate because she obviously doesn't have the slightest clue.
What does seem apparent is Ms Sahar and Ms. Rushdie lack the mental acuity to connect rather obvious dots and comprehend that what they advocate serves to support the aims of the hateful Taliban Islamists.
Of course, profound, or even average insight is not something one expects from the sort of people who write things like,
"The ugly side of freedom is the state-run military spectacle supporting the NATO-led imperialist war and occupation in Afghanistan but parading as a false guilt-trip memorial for those who sacrificed to fight for “our” freedoms. Well, just in case you selectively forgot, your parade is and has always been on stolen, occupied, Native land - what about their freedoms to sovereignty and the Afghan peoples for self-determination? What about our freedom of speech which was infringed on when an officer called our message “trash” and “laughable.” We courageously endured a violent and racist crowd calling out: “go back to your country”, "There's a priceless humor in the irony of the blatant hypocrisy of two women who refer to Afghanistan as their home condemning Canada as a settler colonial society on stolen land and then bitching about people who tell them to "go home". Unfortunately for the duo, understanding that appears to be beyond their cognitive abilities. If they actually believe the idiocy they propound, what are they doing here settling, occupying and stealing land from its rightful owners? If, as they have repeated, Afghanistan is their "home country," shouldn't they stop being occupiers, pack up, and go to a Taliban-occupied part of Afghanistan to experience what Afghan self-determination would actually be like if they got their wish for a NATO withdrawal?
Apparently that's something they want for other unfortunate Afghan women, but not for themselves. Maybe, though hypocrites, they aren't quite as stupid as they sound.
There are plenty of opinions and honest disagreements about the Canadian military role in Afghanistan and anyone has the right to speak out and demonstrate against it. But Remembrance Day services are solemn occasions meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and the principles that represents. To choose the particular location and occasion of a Remembrance Day service to insult and demonstrate and intentionally offend those who have come to mourn is callous and disgusting. Anyone who does that, as my friend Michael Coren has observed, is in my opinion no better than the moral troglodytes of the Hillsboro Baptist Church who defile military funerals with their "God hates fags" protest signs.
While writing about their own courage, the pair of hypocrites who claim their free speech was deprived neglected to mention the police were actually protecting them from an angry mob they had riled up with their offensive display.
Rashdie and Sahar protest that they, with their banner, were not the ones shouting slogans during the moment of silence at the service and they were only one of four protest groups their to offend those honoring and mourning lost soldiers. To the casual observer, there would be no distinction between the two dozen or so ragged radicals who were intermingling and shaming themselves on that occasion. And, as a video shows, the pair certainly enthusiastically participated in foul-mouthed, shrill, shameful hysteria that continued the disruption of the services that day.
The pair tried to justify themselves when they wrote,
In 2001 we watched the invasion of our home country, Afghanistan. Fast forward 11 years later: Afghanistan is still occupied, and every year on Remembrance Day we are reminded of it. It has become painfully obvious that Remembrance Day is used as a war propaganda tool. If one is going to take offense to our presence, direct your misguided anger at those responsible for why we are taking offense.No one has the right to physically attack someone for their opinions. But someone would have to be a complete idiot to go to a service at that nature, provoke the crowd, and not expect such a response. While taking advantage of the freedoms that Canadian soldiers have fought and died to preserve, they came to a memorial to metaphorically spit on the graves of the people who gave them the rights they abused.
Their idiocy continued with:
This is a settler-colonial society, reinforcing itself through racism, which we witnessed at the Remembrance Day ceremony. This is what explains why a handful of racist, white men screamed in our faces to "go back to your country." They believe that they are the rightful owners of this land. We are never accepted as real Canadians in their rigid, exclusionary and alienating cultural terms. We are always deemed as a potential foreign threat especially when we reveal this status quo and hypocrisy.Speaking of hypocrisy, the pair, that alternatively posture themselves as either Canadian or Afghan, depending on which suits their needs at the moment, claim to be "peace activists." It brings to mind the sort of peace activism the late Christopher Hitchens described when he wrote, "in reality, they are straight out pro-war, but on the other side."
That seems evident from an article penned by Leila Rushdie in which she wrote:
We should support the Palestinian national fight for liberation against a military super-power threatening the Near East. The Zionist project is founded upon colonialism and genocide of Palestine. Palestine acts in defense to a colonizer that has been viciously taking Palestinian land and lives in one hand while shamelessly claiming peace and negotiations in the other. The comparison maps of Palestine since 1946 till today speak for itself about the intentions of Apartheid Israel: its about land, not peace.Aside from other apparent idiocies, for so-called peace activists such as Rushdie and Sahar, Western troops fighting against Islamic Jihadists who throw acid in the face of Afghan women who want an education is bad, but Muslim Jihadists who murder Israeli civilians to replace a liberal democracy with an Islamic state is just fine.
But remember, Ms Rushdie and Ms Sahar are not Taliban supporters, Islamists or Jihadis. They just, by remarkable coincidence, share a lot of desired outcomes with them.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Imbecile MSNBC analyst Mona Eltahawy gets arrested in NYC subway station
She seems to think that spray painting someone is a form of non-violent protest, that she has a right to vandalize private property as a form of "expression" and evidently believes that Jihadi is a race.
Moron..
Moron..
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Jihad at Canadian Campuses
Rather than heed the warnings of our parliamentarians and the government, it appears universities have entrenched their position, resulting in an increased assault on tolerance, justice, and human rights. The universities profess to be the guardians of free speech and, in so doing, are aiding and abetting the increasingly toxic environment on campuses by providing public space to speakers who are divisive and hateful.
Of course, we are all advocates of unfettered speech. It is one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. But when one group is consistently targeted by hate campaigns, something is clearly wrong.
More of Avi Benlolo's column at The Huffington Post
Of course, we are all advocates of unfettered speech. It is one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. But when one group is consistently targeted by hate campaigns, something is clearly wrong.
More of Avi Benlolo's column at The Huffington Post
Saturday, December 24, 2011
It`s a jihad Christmas, Charlie Brown!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Tony Blair's Islamofascist sister-in-law issues war cry for jihad against Israel
At the London al Quds rally, dressed like an extra from a community theatre production of the musical, Camelot, Iranian media spokesperson Lauren Booth, half-sister of Tony Blair's wife Cheri Booth, tells idiotic, implausible stories to try to demonize Israel and calls for jihad to wipe out the only liberal democracy in the middle east.
She tells one fable where she alleges a boy called her from a ditch in Gaza for help because his home was just demolished. OK, so if you're lying in a ditch and need help .. you don't call someone around the corner, or the local hospital or police, you call Tony Blair's whack-job sister-in-law over 2000 miles away. Because she's going to cast a spell out of her witch's cauldron to help, huh? Whatever you say, Lauren.
Betraying her violent, Islamist fanaticism, in likelihood exacerbated all the more because as a convert, she probably feels she needs to prove herself, she shrieks "No justice, no peace" over and over and then launches into advocacy of war against Israel and all its citizens.
Here are some choice quotes from that hateful bigot:
"I'll tell you now, wallahi, the Israelis will never have a moment's good sleep in their beds, may they never have a second to taste the sweetness of tranquility..."
re: terrorist group Hamas: "We back your resistance!"
"It is time, brothers and sisters for al Quds (Jerusalem) to be liberated for Islam.."
"And we say here today to you, Israel...to us your nation does not exist because it is a criminal injustice against humanity."
Booth then called on Eqypt, Jordan and Lebanon to wage war on Israel.
The video is here:
She tells one fable where she alleges a boy called her from a ditch in Gaza for help because his home was just demolished. OK, so if you're lying in a ditch and need help .. you don't call someone around the corner, or the local hospital or police, you call Tony Blair's whack-job sister-in-law over 2000 miles away. Because she's going to cast a spell out of her witch's cauldron to help, huh? Whatever you say, Lauren.
Betraying her violent, Islamist fanaticism, in likelihood exacerbated all the more because as a convert, she probably feels she needs to prove herself, she shrieks "No justice, no peace" over and over and then launches into advocacy of war against Israel and all its citizens.
Here are some choice quotes from that hateful bigot:
"I'll tell you now, wallahi, the Israelis will never have a moment's good sleep in their beds, may they never have a second to taste the sweetness of tranquility..."
re: terrorist group Hamas: "We back your resistance!"
"It is time, brothers and sisters for al Quds (Jerusalem) to be liberated for Islam.."
"And we say here today to you, Israel...to us your nation does not exist because it is a criminal injustice against humanity."
Booth then called on Eqypt, Jordan and Lebanon to wage war on Israel.
The video is here:
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
David Letterman laughs at Jihadis
David Letterman was threatened with death by a Muslim jihadi and responded with humor:
Letterman's Top 10 thoughts about hearing his life was threatened:
10. Someone wants to silence me? Get in line.
9. Nothing says summer fun like a death threat.
8. Why is the staff in such a good mood?
7. Save me, Oprah.
6. Should I wear my Kevlar hairpiece?
5. And here I thought nobody watched the show.
4. How can someone be so angry at a time when Kim Kardashian is so happy?
3. Some people get Emmy nominations; some people get death threats.
2. This seems like (Jay) Leno’s handiwork.
1. Oh my God! They canceled the George Lopez Show
h/t The Blaze
Letterman's Top 10 thoughts about hearing his life was threatened:
10. Someone wants to silence me? Get in line.
9. Nothing says summer fun like a death threat.
8. Why is the staff in such a good mood?
7. Save me, Oprah.
6. Should I wear my Kevlar hairpiece?
5. And here I thought nobody watched the show.
4. How can someone be so angry at a time when Kim Kardashian is so happy?
3. Some people get Emmy nominations; some people get death threats.
2. This seems like (Jay) Leno’s handiwork.
1. Oh my God! They canceled the George Lopez Show
h/t The Blaze
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Why are socialist moral relativists silent in the wake of the Norwegian terrorist attack?
After the al-Qaida bombings on 9/11, moral relativists like Noam Chomsky rushed to condemn, not the perpetrators of that horrific atrocity, but the United States of America, for ostensibly having done something to anger the terrorists enough to murder 2977 innocent people.
Rather than outright condemnation of the perpetrators of this abominable mass murder, Chomsky, on the very next day, before the bodies of the victims of Jihadi terror were cold, wrote:
Chomsky was not alone is his morally relativistic justification of Jihad, or even worse, those like Robert Fisk, Richard Falk, Michael Keefer and a cast of irrational or malevolent anti-Capitalists and Jihad apologists who, like Holocaust deniers, strove to deny, and this defend the real perpetrators of the crime against humanity that was committed on September 11, 2001. In some cases, the 9-11 terrorists were even celebrated as heroes, as they were by throngs of Palestinians.
Now that an insane terrorist has murdered dozens of innocent people at a government building and a socialist youth indoctrination camp in Norway, no conservative or Christian of note has come forward to attempt to justify or attempt to mitigate or deflect blame from the depravity of Anders Behring Breivik.
Nor will they. Breivik is a terrorist and mass-murderer for whom there is no justification.
But it is interesting to observe that no anti-capitalist or socialist commentator who was so quick to find a moral justification for 9-11 has not leaped to assuage Breivik's crimes. The question is not why they should do so, for no decent human being possibly could. The question is why they are so anxious to defend and enable the murderers of innocents in the West when the murders are committed in the name of Jihad.
UPDATE: It didn't take long for the crazies to come out of the woodwork. Khaled Muammar, who until earlier this month was president of the Canadian Arab Federation, which was defunded by the federal government for expressing support for terrorist groups, is spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. This one by conspiracy whack-job Stephen Lendman, who says the Breivik killings were a Mossad plot. Lendman is at least consistently crazy. He also says that Bobby Kennedy was killed by the CIA.
(Update h/t Blazing Cat Fur)
Rather than outright condemnation of the perpetrators of this abominable mass murder, Chomsky, on the very next day, before the bodies of the victims of Jihadi terror were cold, wrote:
"we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more.
Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead."
Chomsky was not alone is his morally relativistic justification of Jihad, or even worse, those like Robert Fisk, Richard Falk, Michael Keefer and a cast of irrational or malevolent anti-Capitalists and Jihad apologists who, like Holocaust deniers, strove to deny, and this defend the real perpetrators of the crime against humanity that was committed on September 11, 2001. In some cases, the 9-11 terrorists were even celebrated as heroes, as they were by throngs of Palestinians.
Now that an insane terrorist has murdered dozens of innocent people at a government building and a socialist youth indoctrination camp in Norway, no conservative or Christian of note has come forward to attempt to justify or attempt to mitigate or deflect blame from the depravity of Anders Behring Breivik.
Nor will they. Breivik is a terrorist and mass-murderer for whom there is no justification.
But it is interesting to observe that no anti-capitalist or socialist commentator who was so quick to find a moral justification for 9-11 has not leaped to assuage Breivik's crimes. The question is not why they should do so, for no decent human being possibly could. The question is why they are so anxious to defend and enable the murderers of innocents in the West when the murders are committed in the name of Jihad.
UPDATE: It didn't take long for the crazies to come out of the woodwork. Khaled Muammar, who until earlier this month was president of the Canadian Arab Federation, which was defunded by the federal government for expressing support for terrorist groups, is spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. This one by conspiracy whack-job Stephen Lendman, who says the Breivik killings were a Mossad plot. Lendman is at least consistently crazy. He also says that Bobby Kennedy was killed by the CIA.
(Update h/t Blazing Cat Fur)
Saturday, April 23, 2011
From Fringe Groups: Meeting Nonie Darwish
Nonie Darwish began her story. She was born in Cairo in the 1950’s, and grew up in Gaza under Nasser. She lived her whole childhood in the Arab/Israeli conflict. It was the overriding subject, in schools, cartoons, media, and sermons. Her father started the fedayeen (self-sacrifice) operation whose assignment was to destroy Israel. She learned hatred and retaliation – not exactly normal lessons for children. Peace was never mentioned as a value. Only “jihad” against Jews.
“Jihad,” she explained, is not inner struggle. It is not yoga or self-analysis. In the Middle East, everyone knows what “jihad” means. It’s sharia’s obligatory war against nonMuslims, to establish Islam. The sovereignty of nonMuslim states cannot be conceded (except tactically). By the same token, international law cannot supercede sharia law. Unbelievers must either convert or agree to pay a tax, while being made to feel demeaned/humiliated. She and her school friends were filled with fear of Jews who, they were told, “love to kill Arab children.” Victimhood is essential to jihad.
After her father was killed, the family moved back to Cairo. Nasser paid them a condolence visit. This powerful man put a paternal hand against her cheek and asked, “Which of you kids will avenge your father’s death by killing Jews?” If she didn’t want to do that, she’d be considered disloyal. Noted: at that time, Israel was not in Gaza, not on the West Bank. The ideology of terrorism wasn’t caused by “occupation,” but preceded it.
Read it all at Werner Cohn's blog, Fringe Groups
“Jihad,” she explained, is not inner struggle. It is not yoga or self-analysis. In the Middle East, everyone knows what “jihad” means. It’s sharia’s obligatory war against nonMuslims, to establish Islam. The sovereignty of nonMuslim states cannot be conceded (except tactically). By the same token, international law cannot supercede sharia law. Unbelievers must either convert or agree to pay a tax, while being made to feel demeaned/humiliated. She and her school friends were filled with fear of Jews who, they were told, “love to kill Arab children.” Victimhood is essential to jihad.
After her father was killed, the family moved back to Cairo. Nasser paid them a condolence visit. This powerful man put a paternal hand against her cheek and asked, “Which of you kids will avenge your father’s death by killing Jews?” If she didn’t want to do that, she’d be considered disloyal. Noted: at that time, Israel was not in Gaza, not on the West Bank. The ideology of terrorism wasn’t caused by “occupation,” but preceded it.
Read it all at Werner Cohn's blog, Fringe Groups
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)